■ •£»

w""3/

fatA

\fc

yv/

a I

BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY

3 9999 06588 762 0

■

%m

m

BOSTON
PUBLIC
LIBRARY

Government: Tlorviments Department

m

Government Documents Department

CITY OF /j||\ FINANCE
BOSTON \§p/ COMMISSION

rMliSlifiSiiiilSfilll BOSTON .MASS. 02108 LAfayette 3-1622

THREE CENTER PLAZA, RM 820

re

<7//F

To the Honorable the Mayor:

July 19, 1971

The General Court in 1956, in a most comprehensive piece of
legislation, established the Massachusetts Port Authority and em-
powered it specifically to operate and improve the Mystic River
Bridge, the Sumner Tunnel, the Port of Boston Facilities and Logan
Airport. The Governor of the Commonwealth, in the emergency preamble
to this statute, emphasized the "serious and pressing need for
further development and improvement of commerce by air, land and
water in the City of Boston and the Metropolitan area surrounding
said City for the public safety and convenience which requires the
immediate and extensive studies and the extensions, improvements and
englargements contemplated by said Act to expedite such develop-
ment." A review of this legislation and its background clearly re-
veals a legislative intention that the Massachusetts Port Authority
be authorized to furnish and carry out, in a clear and coordinated
fashion, a broad range of public services relating to the Port of
Boston which previously had been conducted by independent juris-
dictions in a fashion inconsistent with the public interest.

(

(

c

- 2 -

A few years later, 1964, In recognition of the fact that
the City of Boston Fire Department w?.s rendering considerable
services to the Massachusetts Fort Authority (MPA), the Finance Com-
mission suggested that MPA should recognize the availability and
delivery of fire protection services by the City in the "form of
financial reimbursement or in some other tangible form." The previ-
ous year, the General Court had specifically authorized the City of
Boston to contract with MPA to provide fire fighting services for
exempt properties owned by the Authority and it was on the basis of
this legislation that the Finance Commission urged the City and MPA
to implement the legislation with such a service charge contract.

Between 1964 and 1969 the City and MPA were unable to come
to any agreement on this matter.

In April of 1969 the Finance Commission issued a compre-
hensive report on the Boston Fire Department prepared by Gage-
Babcock Co. after lengthy study. Included in that report was a
recommendation that the two City fire boats then in service (which
are converted World War II Minesweepers) had reached an unreliable
condition and that the City should purchase one new fire boat having
a pumping capacity of 6,000 gallons per minute and put this vessel
into service as soon as possible. The report went on to recommend
that at such time as the new boat went into line it would be ap-
propriate for the City to dispose of one of its minesweepers by sale
and hold the other as a reserve boat. The City would then have one
first class fire boat on service at all times and another boat in
reserve at all times. The Boston Fire Department (the Department)
from the outset expressed disagreement with this recommendation on

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2011 with funding from

Boston Public Library

L

http://www.archive.org/details/reportonfinanciaOObost

- 3 -
the basis that the City must have ti»ro fire boats in service at all
times in order to adequately protect Boston harbor. In the dialogue
that ensued between the Finance Commission and representatives of the
Department, the Commission's consultant maintained that it was not
economically feasible nor necessary from a fire fighting standpoint,
for the City to maintain two fire boats in service and that one fire
boat in service and another in reserve" would be adequate. In ad-
dition the consultants noted that the money saved by the Department
by elimination of one entire marine company could be devoted more
effectively to the improvement of automatic protection systems for
waterfront properties.

In spite of continuing discussions between the Finance Com-
mission, the Budget section of Administrative Services Department
and the Fire Department, this issue was never resolved and In the
meantime the Department proceeded to order a new 76 foot fire boat
at a cost of approximately $380,000. It is expected that this boat
will be ready for delivery sometime near the end of 1971. It is
currently the Fire Department's plan to continue to maintain two
fully staffed marine fire companies, engine 31 and engine 47. One
fire company will staff and maintain the new fire boat and the other
fire company will maintain and staff at all times one of the obsolete
minesweepers now in service.

During the protracted and seemingly endless discussions
between the Finance Commission, the City Council and the Department
as to what the City should be doing with its fire boat service, the
City and MPA have carried on intermittent and inconclusive dis-
cussions concerning a possible contract for reimbursement for fire
services by MPA to the City of Boston. Without going into detail,

i

- 4 -
it is fair to say that the atmosphere in which these discussions have
taken place has been jeopardized by acrimony arising from such contro-
versial (but from a reimbursement standpoint irrelevant) issues as
noise levels at and expansion proposals for Logan Airport. Under
these circumstances, quite understandably, it has been impossible for
MPA and the City to agree as contracting parties on any basis for re-
imbursement for fire services, however modest. It is our opinion
that from the City's standpoint the City, not MPA, has been the loser.
Whatever the merits of the arguments being made by municipal of-
ficials against the current operation and future planning of Logan
Airport by MPA, the complete failure of the City to be able to come
to any reimbursement arrangement with MPA, at a time of a great
financial crisis for the City, is a serious mistake. As we see it,
the simple matter of the fact is that the City of Boston cannot afford
to overlook any existing possibility for increasing municipal revenue.
So far as receiving payments for city services rendered to exempt
institutions is concerned, it has long been the recommendation of the
Finance Commission that the City enter into voluntary arrangements
and even employ municipal pressures when appropriate to induce in
lieu payment arrangements. We see no reason for distinguishing MPA
from other exempt organizations in this regard.

The possibility for developing at least an initial reim<-
bursement formula with MPA has never been more propitious then it is
at this time. The reason is as follows: About the time that the
City of Boston ordered its new fire boat, MPA, in the absence of any
progress in reimbursement discussions with the City, proceeded to
order a first class fire boat of its own, incidentally, from the same
firm that is building the City boat and with specifications for fire

- 5 -

fighting (we are informed) which equal or exceed the specifications
called for in the City's fire boat contract. The MPA boat also will
be ready for delivery the end of 1971. It seemed constructive to us,
when we had learned of the MPA's plans, to explore methods whereby
the new City boat and the new MPA boat could be employed together so
as to satisfy the fire fighting requirements as set forth in the
Finance Commission report. It occurred to us, and it has occurred to
other municipal officials as well, that the presence of two brand new
fire boats on the waterfront scene not only completely satisfies but
actually exceeds the requirements set forth in the Gage-Babcock
Report and, indeed, the subsequent position taken by the Department
that there must be at all times two first class fire boats in service
in Boston harbor. When it became apparent to us that the Boston Fire
Department did not share our optimistic view of events, the Finance
Commission held a public hearing, to which it invited representatives
of the Department and MPA, to explore the possibility for coordinating
and combining the use of these new vessels so as to satisfy the
legitimate fire defense needs of the Boston waterfront. At the same
meeting we explored with those officials various other relevant
aspects of the fire service reimbursement question.

At the hearing which was held on March 24, 1971 > we were
distressed to learn from the Commissioner of the Boston Fire De-
partment that in his opinion, notwithstanding the fact that the MPA
boat would be brought into service the end of this year and made
available to fight fires on and off MPA property, the City of Boston
would still have to maintain a second fire boat in service at all
times and that accordingly both engine company 31 and 47 would have
to remain fully staffed for this purpose. We believe it is fair to

- 6 -
say that it was the Commissioner's and the Fire Chief's position at
that hearing that not only are two first class fire boats required to
protect Boston harbor but that both fire boats must be completely
under the jurisdiction of the Boston Fire Chief at all times and that
the City cannot reasonably satisfy its duty to protect the City of
Boston, its citizens and property, under a fully coordinated use
arrangement between the City and MPA. It seemed to be the position
of the Department that in spite of mutual aid arrangements now in
force between the cities and towns within Metropolitan Boston (to
which incidentally, the MPA is a party) deficiencies in loyalty and
control make any such mutual aid arrangement unsatisfactory from a
harbor fire fighting standpoint. Department officials maintained
this position even when it was suggested that a joint operating
agreement between the City and MPA could be drafted to include, among
other things: 1. a joint training program; 2. a coordinated and
harmonious communications network; 3. standardization of equipment;
and 4. joint training exercises including the use of land based
personnel on MPA boats. The chairman of MPA and his Fire Chief both
agreed at the meeting that such a joint operating agreement would be
satisfactory to MPA and that they would agree to implement such an
agreement if the City's consent could be obtained.

The Finance Commission is generally reluctant to second-guess
professional judgments made by department heads having specialized
line responsibilities. Nevertheless, in this case the circumstances

1
Appendix 1 graphically describes the extent to which
mutual aid is currently delivered to Boston.

- 7 -
are a bit different in as much as our professional consultant has
already recommended to us that Boston needs only one first-class fire
boat in service at any one time and that only one marine company
should be required to staff that boat and a reserve boat as well. We
fail to see why the City would not be equally or better served by
having a first-class fire boat of its own and a first-class MPA boat
available to the City at all times on a fully staffed basis under a
comprehensive coordinating joint operating agreement. Notwithstanding
the concern expressed by Department officials about problems of
discipline and control under existing mutual aid arragements, we
cannot accept the argument that these deficiencies subtract signifi-
cantly from the value and effectiveness of an MPA boat operated on
the basis we have described above. It is indeed a sorry commentary
on the ability of the members of the metropolitan community to combine
and cooperate on matters of public safety if such substantial disad-
vantages exist--one which we prefer not to accept.

Of course, not only would a coordinated solution to the
protection of Boston harbor be a practical solution from a fire
fighting standpoint, it would serve as a start to a reimbursement
arrangement between the City and MPA. Specifically, if the City were
to use MPA's boat as a reserve to its own fire boat it would be able
to dismantle one of the two fire companies it now maintains at a
saving of approximately $330,000 per year.2 These funds, as the

The Commissioner's suggestion made at the March 24
hearing that MPA turn over its new vessel to the City
to staff and operate would not produce any saving
in manpower costs.

e

Gage-Babcock study noted, could be applied effectively to other
aspects of Boston's fire defense system. A saving of this magnitude
must be considered as a significant element in any proposed reim-
bursement formula. In substance, it represents a potential transfer
of expense from the City to MPA-- a burden hither to borne, by the 'city
which will henceforth be borne by MPA. The financial advantages to the
City under such an arrangement cannot be dismissed lightly. Taken in
the context of professional assurance of good faith and willingness
to undertake a cooperative operating arrangement, it seems to us that
the MPA offer should be accepted at once and entered into seriously
at the earliest possible moment after the two Departments have each
acquired their new fire boats. If at some future date it should
appear that the arrangement is not working and the City of Boston, its
citizens and property owners, are not adequately protected, the City
could then place another vessel into service. To reject a cooperative
arrangement on the basis of experience gained from land-based compa-
nies where regular combined training and standards of equipment and
control are not existent, does not seem to us appropriate under the
circumstances.

The more general question of reimbursement for fire services
rendered to MPA by the City seems to us inextricably tied up with the
resolution of the manner of use of the new fire boats. As we have
pointed out the potential savings to the City through the coordinated
use of the new MPA boat could be as high as $330,000. This good faith
offer by MPA cannot be lightly dismissed. If, however, the City
administration, despite our recommendations, should conclude that the
City must have, in addition to the new MPA boat, a second boat of its
own, there still exists the question of the overall reimbursement

f

(

t

arrangement which to date has never been resolved. We have already
noted that one obstacle to the development of any contract between the
City and MPA is the aggravated state of the relationship between the
two entities. The Finance Commission is frankly distressed by the
apparent breakdown in communication and the heated nature of the dis-
course between them. In such a climate it is difficult for sensible
accommodations. to" be reached. It is precisely because of this impasse
that we feel the full force of the Finance Commission should be brought
to bear on developing a tentative reimbursement system which will bring
immediate benefits to the City of Boston without preventing implemen-
tations which will make for a fuller and perhaps fairer reimbursement
in the long run—when, hopefully, the tension between MPA and the City
has abated.

When we talk about fire services rendered to MPA by the City
we mean fire services rendered by land based and water based companies
to tax exempt as distinguished from taxable MPA properties. It needs
to be pointed out that many properties owned by MPA are in fact tax-
payers. The MPA cannot reasonably be expected to make an additional
payment for fire services rendered to properties which are already
paying municipal taxes to the City of Boston. As to the other proper-
ties owned by MPA, a service charge, similar to that in effect between
the City and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority seems to us a reason-
able initial step. While more comprehensive reimbursement suggestions
have been made such as taxing MPA in whole or in part on the basis of
its total valuations, such an approach does not seem to us susceptible
of mutual agreement at this time. We cannot, however, dismiss the
possibility that after a period of working relationship and in a
climate of less tension, such an overall basis for reimbursement could

t

-10-
be achieved. The advantage of a per-call fire response charge is its
simplicity and its susceptibility to accurate calculation on an annual
basis. Based upon the experience of the City in recent years, it is
not unreasonable to suppose that if a $500 charge were levied on MPA
per City fire response (as is the case with the Massachusetts Turn-
pike Authority) an average annual return to the City of approximately
$100,000 could be obtained. Under existing cirmumstances it is hard
to see how the City can afford not to take advantage of a formula
which would produce this amount of additional revenue.

It has been suggested from time to time that MPA should in
addition, reimburse the City in some way for the "standby factor, "
that is the extra men and equipment needed in engine houses in the
vicinity of Logan Airport and other MPA properties to protect against
fire contingencies on those properties. It is not clear to us, from
the evidence presented at the recent hearing, that additional men or
equipment are located in these stations over what would normally be
required to protect the' residents and property owners other than MPA.
Even if it could be proved that extra staffing and material is re- i
quired, it seems to us that this factor in the long run can be best
accounted for in any reimbursement formula only after a period of
successful experience under a more straightforward reimbursement
contract as suggested above.

There are two other questions that need to be resolved. First,
is the matter of false alarms. MPA has in the past rejected the
notion that they should pay for fire responses to false alarms called
on or near their property. We feel that MPA's concern has merit and
therefore recommend, for the time being, that if the Chiefs of the two

- 11 -

Departments cannot agree as to whether a given response was to a false
alarm that the Finance Commission should be empowered to arbitrate
the dispute with final authority. The initial arrangement should
therefore exclude from coverage false alarm responses and the final
determination as to what constitutes a false alarm should be made by
the chiefs jointly and if they cannot agree by the Finance Commission.
Meanwhile it would seem prudent for the City and MPA to see whether
it is not possible to devise a more effective system to prevent false
alarms. The second question which sometimes could arise is whether a
fire alarm call has in fact been made on MPA property or on some other
property adjacent thereto. Once again, we cannot believe that it will
be impossible for the Chief to resolve these questions. If they are
not able to do so, we respectfully suggest that the Finance Commission
should be given arbitration powers to make a final determination on
the basis of the records kept by the two Departments.

It may be contended by some who may oppose any "first step"
accommodation between the City and MPA that a reimbursement system
that is not totally and completely comprehensive and inclusive as to
all services rendered by the City to MPA Is not appropriate. We wish
to express strong disagreement with this point of view. Whatever the
merits of the arguments currently put forward by individuals, civic
groups, and municipal officials who are concerned about the existence
of an airport facility convenient to downtown Boston, we do not feel
that it is fair or reasonable for the City to forego intermediate re-
imbursement relief pending the resolution of such long term planning
suggestions as relocation of the airport or substantial changes in the
character of the operation at Logan Airport. This is not to say that
there are not important questions involved, but it seems to us clear

<

•

- 12 -
that City officials seriously interested in improving Boston's revenue
picture should make every attempt now to obtain moneys that we believe
are currently available as a payment in lieu of taxes for City
services. It is our belief that the proposal put forward in this
report represents a good practical first step in recognizing the real
financial benefit to MPA from a major city department. It is by no
means a final solution, but in the context of the overall problem it
is a beginning and there is much to be said we believe for initiating
some reimbursement now. It would be short-sighted indeed if for
other reasons the city taxpayers should be required to carry a burden
which in whole or in part could be swiftly shifted to MPA. We offer
the services of the Finance Commission in the preparation of an
initial draft contract and will at the request of the City and MPA
proceed to prepare such a draft when requested. We hope to receive
such a request soon.

Respectfully submitted,

Lawrence T. Perera, Chairman,

Joseph P. McNamara,

Russell S. Codman, Jr.,

Frederick R. H. Witherby,
THE FINANCE COMMISSION

Thomas J. Murphy
Executive Secretary

'

- 13

Appendix 1

NUMBER OF TIMES FIRE APPARATUS WAS SENT INTO BOSTON
FROM OUTSIDE CITIES AND TOWNS UNDER MUTUAL AID IN THE
YEAR 1969

City op' Town

Responses to Boston

Brookline

Cambridge

Chelsea

Dedham

Everett

Milton

Newton

Quincy

Revere

Somerville

Watertown

Winthrop

Swamps co tt

249

18

19

19

2

5
13
18

0
42

0
16

1

Total

402